Results 41 to 60 of 71
@Gack: more nonsense about Canada I see. Quoting the rebellions of 1837 is entirely irrelevant to the fact that Canada's full independence, albeit still a constitutional monarchy under the Queen of Canada who happens to be the Queen fo England, came about in 1982! There were no serious wars of independence between Canada and the UK. As for the 1837 rebellions, well- they failed in the end and the aftermath of which was increasing assimilation of Quebec French Canadians.
Well done!
Last edited by ComradeMan; 22nd February 2011 at 21:00.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Are you saying that until 1982 Canada did not have basicly political autonomy??? Is that what you are trying to claim?
Through section 2 of the Canada Act 1982, the United Kingdom ended its involvement with further amendments to the Canadian constitution.
Dans la section 2 de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada, le Royaume-Uni mit fin à sa participation dans de futures modifications de la constitution canadienne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Act_1982
I see you have sneaked the word "autonomy" into this. When another nation can interfere with the constitutional amendments (legally) of yet another nation then there is no full independence; as was the case with Canada until 1982.
As far as I can see the overall relationship between Canada and the UK has been mostly amicable, certainly within living memory. No long struggle and no bitter wars- as you asserted.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Comrademan, before 1982 Canada basically had self rule due to the demands for a "responsible government" which resulted in the revolt 1837, which ended up shortly after leading toward a responsible government, meaning an independant government in Canada, the Act of union was in 1840 and throughout the 1840s Canada got essencially self rule, in 1862 that was made official though the Constitution act.
All of this happened because the UK was afraid of a revolt and had pressure from the Canadians.
What happened in 1982 was mostly formalities, as by then Canada already had pretty much full political independance.
had pretty much- 99% yes is 100% no. LOL!!!
Your comparison of the legal and political relationship of (the)Canada(s) to the United Kingdom and the American War of Independence is absurd.
The fact of the matter is that whereas the United States on formalisation of independence severed all legal and constitutional ties with the United Kingdom as a federal and constitutional republic formally recognised in 1783 the current constitution of which dates from 1788, Canada still a constitutional monarchy under the British crown, severed all such legal and constitutional ties in 1982. Whereas the United States achieved this after a rebellion and subsequent war, Canada achieved this through political negotiation, debate and the democratic process.
Talk about false equivalencies....
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Ok, but my argument was absolutely valid, both got their independance (mostly) with struggle, some of which was violent, one made an empire, one did not.
Your argument of Libaration=Tyranny is still invalid.
A) You keep having to insert extra words and/or delete and/or change terms in order to save your argument. The differences are enormous and outweigh any similarities.
B) I did not say Libaration (sic) = Tyranny. So well done for the strawman. I said the oppressed often become oppressors once "liberated" within which has been the case throughout history. Of course you could argue that through the application of a class analysis the oppressed have never actually been liberated at all and all talk of national liberation fundamentally boils down to one national bourgeoisie fighting another one for "liberation".
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
The similiarity that matters, is that the Canadians struggled for their independance it was'nt given to them out of the goodness of the british peoples hearts, its the same argument.
And my argument is that your ful of it, and that is NOT the case, the corrolation between oppressed people's being liberated and becoming oppressors is not there. The corrolation, both logical and historical, is a large amount of concentrated power.
US Imperialism did not exist in 1776. That comes later. Also keep in mind that the US was the first country founded on the right of revolution(see the Declaration of Independence).Though an essentially bourgeois revolution, it was a progressive first step in its time. Also keep in mind that the American Revolution never really ended. It continues to this day, wherever American workers are fighting for their rights.Lets keep our historical facts straight (unless one WANTS to sound like an illiterate imbecile).
Nonsense, the similarity is incidental and minimal. You haven't got a leg to stand on unless you are going to try and redefine your terms all over the place. There was no war of independence between the UK and Canada.
Err... you haven't got an argument.
The trouble is, and you fail to see this, when do these wars of liberation actually liberate the oppressed and not the national bourgeoisie who in turn become oppressors or simply continue the old forms of oppression on a local basis? Old wine in new bottles...
US Imperialism began in 1776 when it took over from British imperialism.
By the way, you should keep in mind that the right of revolution began in ancient China and was first mentioned in political terms during the Zhou dynasty in order to defend the revolution against the Shang dynasty- the "Mandate from Heaven"- so you're a couple of millennia out on that one. In European terms it could be said to begin with the English Magna Carta- I aslo refer you to Thomas Aquinas. This same right of revolution formed the basis of the Glorious Revolution in England that overthrew James II in 1688.
Lets keep our historical facts straight (unless one WANTS to sound like an illiterate imbecile)
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
America became imperialistic immediately after the revolution, even during it tyring to invade Canada. So... no.
But Comrademan, not that I disagree with your stance (I sort of straddle the line between you and Gack) but I would like to interject the difference between De Facto political rule, and De Jure political rule. It seems Gack is asserting that after 82 (ior whenever) British rule of Canada became purely De Jure.
Never said there was, your missing my point. Independance in Canada WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE CANADIANS OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THE BRITISH STATES HEART, the canadians struggled for it, in the 1830s an 1840s they struggled for self rule, after they got that, over time, they got more and more independance, but it started with struggle.
Thats the similarity that matters in the context of your assertion (which was that there is a corrolation between becoming liberated and becoming imperialistic, which is stupid).
Cuba for example, Venezuela is another example.
Look if your looking for a national revolution in which afterwords no form of oppression happens, that rarely happens, most of those revolutions are local, and not national (zapatistas, CNT, worker takeovers) and so on.
However, national bourgeoisie oppression exists in imperialism as well, the imperialism aspect, when taken away, IS ACTUALLY TAKEN AWAY, then sure you still have Capitalism there, but that does not negate the fact that you just got rid of a major labor of oppression.
I'd agree with you in the sense that it took lands from the Indians, but British imperialim was strong and propsering all through and until WW2. American imperialism was tiny in scale until after WW2, just history comrademan.
It would be interesting to hear your opinions on the French Revolution, and the Revolutions of 1848.Would you consider them progressive for their time? Or would you consider them utterly reactionary, because they did not result in the creation of a futuristic communist society?
Well did they abolish property rights? No they entrenched property rights. Did they pass the means of production into the hands of the workers? No they didn't? They could be seen as the death throws of the old regime in a sense.
Gacky, the Cuban revolution- although it replaced a worse regime did not exactly liberate the Cuban people that much, did it? As for Venezuela- well, it's far too early to comment.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Well so why bother then.
If people listened to you we'd still have slavery and 1/4th of the world would be under britain, and we'd have no democratic countries, workers would have no rights and Latin America would still be Spanish slave camps.
Cuba is better now than it was under batista, much better, As for Venezuela? We'll its almsot 10 years now.
If people listenened to me those things would not have come about in the first place.
It's tough taking a leftist stance on things but until you abolish property rights and place the means of production in the hands of the workers, as Popov says, all you will have is palace coups and bourgeois revolutions that have the nerve to pose as "liberation". Why would we have slavery by the way? The emancipation of slavery had probably more to do with the industrial revolution and the creation of industrial wage slavery than it had to do with humanitarianism.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Slavery was done away with due to violent struggles in the united states, and other places.
Heres the point, I support things that make peoples lives better, and that is not always gonna be total abolishion of property rights and a turning over of hte means of production to the hands of the workers, but if your waiting for the PERFECT revolution to get off your ass and make a difference, you might as well just quit.
Getting rid of a layer of exploitation, is better than just waiting to get rid of it all.
Oh please, how naive can you get?
Slavery and serfdom were largely abolished along with the onset of the industrial age as the machines replaced the manual labour. In fact, there is a whole perspective on the American Civil War that saw it, albeit cynically, as nothing more than the attempt to smash the South economically and provide cheap labour for the factories of the North- the rest was just lip service.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Tho there is truth in that Comrademan... Im surprised you've fallen for that right wing rhetoric. That definition is to act as if there was no struggle involved at all.
Ok... what machines "replaced" manual labor? The technology of the industrial revolution facilitated the productiveness of manual labor, but it did not eliminate it (iow, replace). This DID NOT make slavery less economically efficient. What it did was make having large holdings of slaves less economically efficient. Think the cotton gin, why would you need 30 slaves any more when the work can be done with 10? But there is no causal way you can say that would eliminate slavery completely, only reduce it. There is still land that needs farmed. (And slavery is an agricultural based phenomenon. If a factory owner uses slaves he has to house them, which means he needs to buy more land which will make no money for him)
What this increase in "free-men" did do was allow a culture of abolitionism to develop. People with everything to lose (the enslaved) don't often want to shake up the system. But people with nothing to lose (the now free), hey, no problem.
"has been portrayed as a handful of farmers slaughtering 5,000,000 Redcoats then instantly winning freedom".
About the size of the whole UK population in the North at the time
